Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3d 285
BACKGROUND
2
On February 3, 1992, two men robbed United States Letter Carrier James E.
Warren at gun point, taking a mailbag that contained welfare checks to be
delivered that day. Although the gun was not fired during the course of the
robbery, it was pointed at Warren's chest. The stolen checks were drawn for
varying amounts totaling approximately $26,000.
The following day, Willie Williams was arrested after attempting to cash one of
the stolen checks. In an interview with United States Postal Inspectors (the
"Inspectors"), Williams stated that he was not involved in the robbery and
named Darius Miller and Stephens as the culprits. Williams said that he
received the stolen check from Miller.
On February 5, the Inspectors arrested Miller and charged him with the armed
robbery of a mailman. The next day, Miller agreed to cooperate with the
Inspectors. As a consequence of that cooperation, the Inspectors retrieved the
mailbag from a dumpster behind Williams' apartment and found Stephens' and
Williams' fingerprints on various pieces of the recovered mail.
On February 10, Stephens turned himself in to the federal authorities and was
arrested for armed robbery. Stephens told the Inspectors that: he and Miller
were playing pool together on the day of the robbery; Miller left for fifteen to
twenty minutes and returned, asking Stephens to go to Williams' apartment with
him; at Williams' apartment, Williams hurriedly changed his clothes; and the
three then went to Stephens' apartment, where Williams dumped stolen mail
onto the kitchen table. On March 26, Stephens was indicted on one count of
armed robbery of a letter carrier, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2114, and on one
count of knowing possession of stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1708.
Shortly before trial, Williams pled guilty to aiding and abetting the robbery but
did not enter into a cooperation agreement with the government. At trial,
Williams testified that Miller and Stephens asked him for his gun and that he
agreed to give it to them so long as they gave him a portion of the proceeds. He
also testified that, when Stephens and Miller returned, Stephens bragged that he
would have shot the mailman and called Miller a "punk" because he did not do
anything. Miller, who entered into a cooperation agreement with the
government, testified that: he and Stephens planned the robbery; obtained the
gun from Williams; robbed the mailman; brought the mail back to Williams'
apartment, where they separated the checks from the other mail; and went to
Stephens' apartment, where they divided up the checks.
An eyewitness, Emanuel Roan, testified for the government that he saw Miller
and Stephens run down the sidewalk and that Stephens was carrying a mailbag
and a gun. Another government witness, Thea Kelly, testified that, while she
was at Williams' apartment visiting Williams' girlfriend, Stephens and Miller
came by, met briefly with Williams and then left. They returned approximately
fifteen minutes later, and one of them said, "Yo, we got the mailman." Kelly
said that she left the room while Williams, Miller and Stephens sorted the mail.
Stephens called three witnesses who testified that the two men running down
the street were Miller and Williams but not Stephens. Stephens did not testify.
On June 10, 1992, the jury acquitted Stephens of armed robbery and convicted
him of possessing stolen mail. Thereafter, the Probation Department prepared a
presentence report ("PSR"). The PSR included calculations indicating that
Stephens' applicable guidelines range was six to twelve months, reflecting a
criminal history category of I and a base offense level of ten. Pursuant to the
guideline for possession of stolen property, U.S.S.G. 2B1.2, Stephens had a
base offense level of four, which was increased by six levels to ten in order to
reflect the $26,000 value of the stolen mail. Stephens objected to the
recommendation in the PSR that he be held responsible for the entire value of
the stolen mail. He argued that he should be sentenced according to the value of
only the three checks on which his fingerprints were found. The total value of
the three checks was $1133.25.
I10am not going to sentence the Defendant--and I'm not sure it's being suggested that I
should--on the basis of the count on which he was acquitted.
....
11
12
That does not remove, however, from the case two elements which I think are
proven and relate to the count of conviction....
13
I also think there's adequate evidence, more than adequate evidence by any
standard that I've ever used in any sentencing that there was a gun involved
here, involved at all times. And I'm going to depart upward on that basis so that
we end up with a sentencing range of 18 to 24 months.
....
14
15
And I do depart from 10 to 15 based on the fact that a gun was involved. And
I'm not talking about the gun being involved when the postman was being held
up. I'm talking about a gun being involved in the scheme generally, I think,
among other things, the planning to possess stolen mail, however one possessed
it.
16
Sentencing Transcript, Sept. 16, 1992, ("Tr.") at 11-14. As a result of the fivelevel upward departure, the applicable guidelines range was eighteen to twentyfour months. The district court sentenced Stephens to a term of imprisonment of
twenty-two months.
DISCUSSION
17
Stephens contends primarily that the district court erred in sentencing by: (1)
attributing to him the value of all of the stolen checks; and (2) departing
upward by five levels for the involvement of a firearm in the underlying
conduct of possessing stolen mail. We reject Stephens' first argument; we
accept his second argument to the extent that we remand the case for
resentencing, the district court to include a statement of reasons for any upward
departure it may determine to be appropriate.
The district court determined that Stephens was responsible for possessing all
the mail stolen from the mailman. The district court found: "[Stephens is]
responsible for possession of all that mail and the evidence, as I heard it, or the
contents of that mail. And so the six-level departure for the $26,000 value will
be applied. It's not a departure, but it becomes a part of the crime." Tr. at 12.
Stephens asserts that he should be held responsible for only the amount of the
checks on which his fingerprints were found or, at the most, for only one-third
of the total value of the checks.
19
Here, it is undisputed that the value of the stolen checks was $26,000. Evidence
offered at trial established that Stephens, Miller and Williams segregated the
envelopes containing the checks from the rest of the stolen mail, opened the
envelopes, and divided the contents among themselves. Therefore, Stephens is
accountable for the entire amount of the stolen checks because he aided and
abetted the others in connection with their possession of the stolen mail.
Moreover, Stephens engaged in concerted criminal activity in possessing the
stolen mail and is accountable for the entire $26,000 because the conduct of
Miller and Williams was in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal
activity and was reasonably foreseeable. See id. Thus, the district court's
determination that Stephens was responsible for the full $26,000 value of all of
the stolen checks was proper.
2. Presence of a Firearm
21
22
Stephens argues that the district court's five-level upward departure from the
applicable guidelines range due to the involvement of a gun was unwarranted
because: (1) there was an insufficient factual basis for the district court's
determination that Stephens knew that a gun was involved; and (2) the
guidelines already adequately consider the presence of a firearm in determining
the base offense level under section 2B1.2.
23
First, Stephens' contention that there was insufficient evidence to show that he
knew a gun was involved in the offense lacks merit. Both Miller and Williams
testified that Stephens knew there was a gun, and Williams testified that
Stephens and Miller came to his apartment asking to use his gun and that he
gave them his gun. This version of the events was supported by Kelly's
testimony that Stephens and Miller arrived together and met with Williams at
the apartment. Considering this and other evidence, the district court's factual
determination was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Barone, 913 F.2d
46, 50 (2d Cir.1990).
24
We also reject Stephens' contention that the guidelines already contemplate the
use of a weapon in a possession of stolen property offense. Stephens argues that
guidelines section 2B1.2(b)(2) indicates that the Commission accounted for the
presence of a weapon for a section 2B1.2 offense. Section 2B1.2(b)(2) provides
for a specific enhancement if the stolen property "included a firearm,
destructive device, or controlled substance." This is not a case in which the
stolen property included firearms, and Stephens did not receive an enhancement
pursuant to section 2B1.2(b)(2).
25
The Sentencing Reform Act provides that a district court shall impose a
sentence within the applicable guidelines range "unless the court finds that
there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree,
not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in
formulating the guidelines." 18 U.S.C. 3553(b) (1988). A district court has
"wide discretion" and "sensible flexibility" in determining whether aggravating
circumstances exist to support an upward departure. United States v. Palta, 880
F.2d 636, 639 (2d Cir.1989). The policy statement found in section 5K2.0 also
provides for a measure of discretion: "Presence of any such factor [aggravating
or mitigating circumstances not adequately considered by the Guidelines] may
warrant departure from the guidelines, under some circumstances, in the
discretion of the sentencing court." U.S.S.G. 5K2.0. The policy statement
continues:
Id. Furthermore, section 5K2.6 specifically provides that weapons used in the
commission of a crime may warrant departure:
Id. 5K2.6.
30
Here, the district court, in its discretion, decided to impose an upward departure
based on the evidence that Stephens knew, during the planning stages of the
scheme to possess stolen mail, that a gun was going to be used in the robbery of
the mailman. Because section 2B1.2 does not contemplate the involvement of a
weapon in the offense conduct (except when a firearm is the property stolen),
the district court properly considered an upward departure to account for the
involvement of a weapon in the scheme underlying the offense for which
Stephens was convicted. See id. 5K2.6. Since it was reasonably foreseeable to
Stephens that the gun would be used forcibly to obtain the mail and would
create a risk of injury to the mailman, an upward departure was appropriate. See
id. 5K2.6; United States v. James, 998 F.2d 74, 83 (2d Cir.1993).
31
32
Stephens contends that the district court's five-level departure was excessive
and unreasonable because: (1) it was inconsistent with the treatment of a gun
under the guidelines in analogous circumstances; and (2) it failed to utilize a
multi-count and sequential analysis, see United States v. Kim, 896 F.2d 678,
684 (2d Cir.1990).
A reviewing court must bear in mind that
33 conduct not taken into account by the Guidelines provisions applicable to the
when
defendant provides the basis for an upward departure, the court should not arrive at a
sentence that exceeds the penalty that would have been imposed had the defendant
been sentenced under other Guidelines provisions that do take the same or similar
conduct into account. This goal is accomplished when the court looks to analogous
Guidelines provisions to determine the extent of the departure.
34
United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130, 140 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---, 113 S.Ct. 140, 121 L.Ed.2d 92 (1992). One analogous guidelines provision
that takes into account conduct similar to that of Stephens' is section 2B3.1(b)
(2)(C), which provides for a five-level enhancement if a firearm is "brandished,
displayed, or possessed" during the course of a robbery. If it could be said that
Stephens' conduct was the same or similar to that referred to in section 2B3.1(b)
(2)(C), a five-level upward departure would not be improper.
35
Stephens argues that analogies to the guidelines for drug related offenses and
burglary are more appropriate and that the district court should have increased
his base offense level by only two levels. Section 2D1.1 provides for a twolevel enhancement if a dangerous weapon is possessed in a drug-related
offense. This analogy, however, does not account for the fact that there was a
victim in this case who was put in fear and danger by the brandishing of the
gun. Stephens' analogy to the guidelines for burglary, sections 2B2.1 and
2B2.2, providing for a two-level enhancement when a firearm is possessed in
connection with a burglary, also may be problematic. The commentary to those
sections explains that a two-level enhancement may be insufficient if a weapon
is used or used to threaten: "Weapon possession, but not use, is a specific
offense characteristic because use of a weapon (including to threaten) ordinarily
would make the offense robbery. Weapon use would be a ground for upward
departure." U.S.S.G. 2B2.1, 2B2.2, background. Applying this commentary,
and because there is evidence here that the weapon was used to threaten the
mailman, an increase greater than two levels may be appropriate. With respect
to Stephens' second contention, "Kim does not require that an offense-level
departure be accompanied by a mechanical level-by-level review of the extent
of the upward departure." United States v. Mandel, 991 F.2d 55, 57 (2d
Cir.1993) (internal quotations omitted). Rather, a review of a departure must
focus on whether the "reasons given by the district court ... are sufficient to
justify the magnitude of the departure." Williams v. United States, --- U.S. ----,
----, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1121, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992).
36
In sentencing Stephens, the district court did not articulate its reasons for
upwardly departing by five levels instead of by some lesser number. Therefore,
even though we find that it was within the discretion of the district court to
depart upward by five levels, a remand is necessary. On remand, the district
court need only reconsider the issue of the five-level departure and state on the
record its reasons for any departure it decides to make. Nothing in the foregoing
is to be taken to indicate that we have an opinion as to the appropriate extent of
enhancement for the involvement of the weapon in the conduct underlying the
offense of conviction in this case.
CONCLUSION
37
Stephens' sentence is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for
resentencing in a manner consistent with the foregoing.